Broken Wheels of Nepal's Democracy

Dr. Raman Raj Misra

Democracy as a word per se has become an enigma in present day Nepal. It seems to connote different things to different sets of people. Even diehard communists like Narayan Man Bijukchhe and the milder communists like Madav K. Nepal have often chanted this word, "democracy". And, of course the radical communists like Babu Ram Bhattarai have not been an exception in this regard. Only as far as one can fathom, their democracy is a "one-party democracy". Other people with different sets of political value systems also have not refrained from evoking and chanting this mystical word, "democracy".

In one sense, this word "democracy" with associated qualifiers that have been used the world over including in Nepal seem to render it meaningless when used all by itself. We have had capitalist democracy, bourgeois democracy or liberal democracy versus proletarian democracy. We have had democracies with adjectives like, "grass-root", "guided", and "panchayat". And most recently, as one hears from Iran, we also have "Islamic democracy". And because of this, one is tempted to make a snide remark saying that all and any types of political systems are "Democracies", albeit with their associated qualifying adjectives.

In Nepal, one also comes across a term like, "real democracy". This of course implies that there is also a "false democracy". We used to hear about "infant democracy" till a couple of years ago, to justify the lack of good governance or the incompetence of the political parties. And in recent times, one has come to hear about "new democracy" and "people's democracy", coming from the leftist camp. And also one hears about "inclusive versus exclusive democracy" from the ethnic organisations. One is also in a quandary as to the differences between the democracies of one political leader of a single party from that of another, say that of Girija's and Ganesh Man's.

Nevertheless, the dominant view of democracy has led one to assume that the essence of democracy resides in the entity called political parties and the procedure called elections. Like the two wheels of a chariot, political parties and the elections constitute the two primary wheels of democracy. We used to have panchayat democracy with elections and no parties. But Chandra Shekher et al. vetoed that democracy, supposedly because we did not have the other associated wheel of democracy, namely the political parties. After a stint of about eleven years, we seem once again to be trying to drive the chariot of our democracy with only one wheel attached to it. Only, unlike in the panchayat democracy, this time we have the "wheel of parties" without the "wheel of elections".

The indispensable election scheduled for 2002 had been impeded. Our political parties had participated in the General Election of 1999 in spite of the Maoist threats. At that time the political parties were not scared of the Maoists. Only that due to the Maoist threat the election was held in two phases in May 13 and 17. However, in spite of the fact that the scheduled election of 2003 was to be held in six phases to counter the Maoist threat, it was still impeded. This impediment arose because the seven political parties did not dare to participate in the election, purportedly due to the fear of the Maoists. In spite of such fear of the Maoists, the political parties seem incapable even to attempt to take measures to remove such fear.

Given all the rhetoric that has been dished out by the four, agitating political parties, it seems that they want us to believe that their brand of democracy can still function without elections only if they are graciously placed in positions to wield power sans the mandate of the voters. If the chariot of panchayat democracy could be driven with elections sans political parties for about thirty years, it might just be possible to gyrate our "unique" democracy with political parties sans elections.

We may just be able to devise a single wheel democratic chariot that runs on the basis of parties alone. But the parties, as a single wheel of our unique democratic chariot have remained flawed with cracks, creeks and broken parts. But it is heartening to see that such minor things have not discouraged our political parties, and other supporters of democracy one bit. They still think that they alone are the capable defenders of democracy in spite of all the flaws within their parties. Perhaps such flaws are the strength of our political parties; otherwise our intellectuals would not have so much faith in such parties, with the corrupt and incapable leaders at the helm.

Since our parties, with all their internal flaws, seem fully confident to drive the chariot of democracy sans elections at the national level, and because parties with debilitating flaws remain indispensable to our democracy, reforms to remove flaws within the parties is not necessary. There is no need to reform the statutes of the political parties to reflect the electoral primacy of the cadres. It is sufficient to allow the nominated party leaders the dominant role within the party. The personal, whimsical directions of a few party leaders must remain paramount, and not that of the party ideology and manifestos. There is no need to remove the tarnished and incapable party leaders, and replace them with the clean and capable members.

Perhaps to maintain their indispensability, the parties and their leaders have not attempted to facilitate elections, either singly or collectively. In fact, they must be inwardly thankful to the Maoists for removing the "wheel of elections" from the chariot of our democracy. It has certainly saved the political parties the trouble of reforming themselves by bringing about necessary changes in their statutes and installing a new set of clean and capable leadership. As long as the incapables are confident, and have the support of our intellectuals, there is surely no need to promote the capable cadres within the political parties.

Further, Maoists have done the political leaders of the parties a great favour by not allowing them to renew their mandate from the people. So now they are saved from subjecting themselves to the electoral evaluation for their past performances. Since the people do not have any chance to evaluate the parties and the former representatives, the political leaders of the party also can claim to be the representative of the people indefinitely, even though they dare not go to the people anymore.

Not being able to go to the people has also benefited the parties immensely. It has saved them from being distracted from "saving democracy by slogans" from Ratna Park area in Kathmandu. With such courage and wisdom of the agitating parties, no doubt our "unique democracy" will remain gyrated without any elections. So we can rest assured in that, while the lowly women of Dailekh and other remote districts may risk their lives fighting for their rights, the brave men of the agitating parties will take their daring stand in Ratna Park and save, by slogans, their unique brand of democracy.

   _   _